VIJAY RAO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference from the District and Sessions Court, Gulbarga, recommending that the sentence of a fine of Its. 50/- and in default 15 days imprisonment passed by the Munsiff Court, Tandur, on. 30. 6. 1952 against the accused Vijay Rao for contempt under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, be set aside as it is bad in law. The revision-petitioner, Vijay Rao, is present in person. I have carefully considered the record and put down my opinion below.

(2.) TILE offence charged against the revision-petitioner is, as already stated, that of contempt of court, an offence which may be tried under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or under the inherent powers of the Court of Record or under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, or summarily under S. 480, Indian Criminal P. C. , if it is committed in 'facie curiae'. It appears from a perusal of the record that the court has proceeded under Section 480, I. Cr. P. C. which provides, 'inter alia', that an offence as described in Section 228, I. P. C. is committed in the view of or in the presence of the court, the court may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender t to a fine not exceeding Rs. 200/- and in default to simple imprisonment for a month. As already stated, the learned Sessions Judge is of the opinion that the conviction of the accused is bad In law. The facts as stated by the learned Magistrate are: